IrishJew wrote:Sincee you're already doing the analysis, what about the other way? What percent of JS1 days have other news on them?

There were a total of 44 JS1 days reported in the spreadsheet, plus 1 for today, giving you 45. There are 5 JS2 days. So 11.1% of JS1 days also had JS2's. But I'm not sure how surprising that is, since we know JS1's come out much more frequently. I think the takeaway is that the one doesn't really influence the other. Meaning if you have JS1's come out that doesn't predict JS2's later in the day nor does it preclude it. Also don't forget this is all just correlation we are looking at.

IrishJew wrote:Sincee you're already doing the analysis, what about the other way? What percent of JS1 days have other news on them?

There were a total of 44 JS1 days reported in the spreadsheet, plus 1 for today, giving you 45. There are 5 JS2 days. So 11.1% of JS1 days also had JS2's. But I'm not sure how surprising that is, since we know JS1's come out much more frequently. I think the takeaway is that the one doesn't really influence the other. Meaning if you have JS1's come out that doesn't predict JS2's later in the day nor does it preclude it. Also don't forget this is all just correlation we are looking at.

Yeah, makes sense. IT's too bad LSN doesn't keep track of JS1s; I'd really like to do a similar analysis for January 2013. But I think we've clearly seen that this cycle's timing seems to be rather different from last year's, so that may actually be counter-productive.

IrishJew wrote:Sincee you're already doing the analysis, what about the other way? What percent of JS1 days have other news on them?

There were a total of 44 JS1 days reported in the spreadsheet, plus 1 for today, giving you 45. There are 5 JS2 days. So 11.1% of JS1 days also had JS2's. But I'm not sure how surprising that is, since we know JS1's come out much more frequently. I think the takeaway is that the one doesn't really influence the other. Meaning if you have JS1's come out that doesn't predict JS2's later in the day nor does it preclude it. Also don't forget this is all just correlation we are looking at.

Yeah, makes sense. IT's too bad LSN doesn't keep track of JS1s; I'd really like to do a similar analysis for January 2013. But I think we've clearly seen that this cycle's timing seems to be rather different from last year's, so that may actually be counter-productive.

So I looked at the spreadsheet data again, but a little differently.

We have a total of 87 individual JS2 dates in the spreadsheet (obviously there are multiple for each of the 6 actual days JS2's have come out). Of those, 64 JS2 dates occurred on a day where there were JS1's. So if you look at it this way, 74% of the total JS2's released (per the spreadsheet) occurred on a day with JS1's.

Again, this probably speaks more to the fact that there have been 45 "JS1 days" since 10/31 (first JS1 in the spreadsheet) out of 55ish business days since that time, so again it's likely random. But still interesting.

IrishJew wrote:Sincee you're already doing the analysis, what about the other way? What percent of JS1 days have other news on them?

There were a total of 44 JS1 days reported in the spreadsheet, plus 1 for today, giving you 45. There are 5 JS2 days. So 11.1% of JS1 days also had JS2's. But I'm not sure how surprising that is, since we know JS1's come out much more frequently. I think the takeaway is that the one doesn't really influence the other. Meaning if you have JS1's come out that doesn't predict JS2's later in the day nor does it preclude it. Also don't forget this is all just correlation we are looking at.

Yeah, makes sense. IT's too bad LSN doesn't keep track of JS1s; I'd really like to do a similar analysis for January 2013. But I think we've clearly seen that this cycle's timing seems to be rather different from last year's, so that may actually be counter-productive.

So I looked at the spreadsheet data again, but a little differently.

We have a total of 87 individual JS2 dates in the spreadsheet (obviously there are multiple for each of the 6 actual days JS2's have come out). Of those, 64 JS2 dates occurred on a day where there were JS1's. So if you look at it this way, 74% of the total JS2's released (per the spreadsheet) occurred on a day with JS1's.

Again, this probably speaks more to the fact that there have been 45 "JS1 days" since 10/31 (first JS1 in the spreadsheet) out of 55ish business days since that time, so again it's likely random. But still interesting.

Not necessarily. Since only 3/5 JS2 days were JS1 days, randomness would predict something around 60%, so your finding of 75% could be significant. Perhaps their office has days that are primarily for notification and days that are primarily for review and other functions, and the other 25% of JS2s were just tossed off during downtime or before the holiday.

Of course, even if JS2s come with JS1s, that doesn't mean that JS1s signal JS2s, since there are far more JS1 days than JS2 days. That leaves me wondering if JS1s come out mostly in large clumps with a few smaller batches here and there or if they are well-distributed. (Your recent posts imply that JS2s clump heavily, with 75% of them coming out on only 3 days while the other two days together only had about 25%. Do JS1s behave similarly?) If so, is one kind of "JS1 day" (heavy or light) more likely to be correlated with JS2s?

lawschool22 wrote:There were a total of 44 JS1 days reported in the spreadsheet, plus 1 for today, giving you 45. There are 5 JS2 days. So 11.1% of JS1 days also had JS2's. But I'm not sure how surprising that is, since we know JS1's come out much more frequently. I think the takeaway is that the one doesn't really influence the other. Meaning if you have JS1's come out that doesn't predict JS2's later in the day nor does it preclude it. Also don't forget this is all just correlation we are looking at.

Yeah, makes sense. IT's too bad LSN doesn't keep track of JS1s; I'd really like to do a similar analysis for January 2013. But I think we've clearly seen that this cycle's timing seems to be rather different from last year's, so that may actually be counter-productive.

So I looked at the spreadsheet data again, but a little differently.

We have a total of 87 individual JS2 dates in the spreadsheet (obviously there are multiple for each of the 6 actual days JS2's have come out). Of those, 64 JS2 dates occurred on a day where there were JS1's. So if you look at it this way, 74% of the total JS2's released (per the spreadsheet) occurred on a day with JS1's.

Again, this probably speaks more to the fact that there have been 45 "JS1 days" since 10/31 (first JS1 in the spreadsheet) out of 55ish business days since that time, so again it's likely random. But still interesting.

Not necessarily. Since only 3/5 JS2 days were JS1 days, randomness would predict something around 60%, so your finding of 75% could be significant. Perhaps their office has days that are primarily for notification and days that are primarily for review and other functions, and the other 25% of JS2s were just tossed off during downtime or before the holiday.

Of course, even if JS2s come with JS1s, that doesn't mean that JS1s signal JS2s, since there are far more JS1 days than JS2 days. That leaves me wondering if JS1s come out mostly in large clumps with a few smaller batches here and there or if they are well-distributed. (Your recent posts imply that JS2s clump heavily, with 75% of them coming out on only 3 days while the other two days together only had about 25%. Do JS1s behave similarly?) If so, is one kind of "JS1 day" (heavy or light) more likely to be correlated with JS2s?

JS1s seem to come either in waves or at random times. Today definitely seems to have been a JS1 wave

IrishJew wrote:Not necessarily. Since only 3/5 JS2 days were JS1 days, randomness would predict something around 60%, so your finding of 75% could be significant. Perhaps their office has days that are primarily for notification and days that are primarily for review and other functions, and the other 25% of JS2s were just tossed off during downtime or before the holiday.

Of course, even if JS2s come with JS1s, that doesn't mean that JS1s signal JS2s, since there are far more JS1 days than JS2 days. That leaves me wondering if JS1s come out mostly in large clumps with a few smaller batches here and there or if they are well-distributed. (Your recent posts imply that JS2s clump heavily, with 75% of them coming out on only 3 days while the other two days together only had about 25%. Do JS1s behave similarly?) If so, is one kind of "JS1 day" (heavy or light) more likely to be correlated with JS2s?

JS1 days are fairly well distributed. Here is the profile of the number of people with a JS1 per JS1 invite day:

Mode: 1Medan: 2Max: 11, Count: 1Min: 1, Count:Avg: 2.37Std. Dev: 1.9

I don't think we can glean much from this. The one "wave" we had (with 11 people) was way back on 10/16, likely too early for any JS2's to come out that day.

IrishJew wrote:Not necessarily. Since only 3/5 JS2 days were JS1 days, randomness would predict something around 60%, so your finding of 75% could be significant. Perhaps their office has days that are primarily for notification and days that are primarily for review and other functions, and the other 25% of JS2s were just tossed off during downtime or before the holiday.

I forgot about this part. If we remove the 12/23 JS2's (there were seven), which could be, as you say, tossed off before the holiday, then we arrive at a total of 64/80 JS2's going out on day's with JS1's, which puts us at 80%.

Now we're just messing with the data ("two kinds of lies..."), but it's fun lol.

IrishJew wrote:Not necessarily. Since only 3/5 JS2 days were JS1 days, randomness would predict something around 60%, so your finding of 75% could be significant. Perhaps their office has days that are primarily for notification and days that are primarily for review and other functions, and the other 25% of JS2s were just tossed off during downtime or before the holiday.

Of course, even if JS2s come with JS1s, that doesn't mean that JS1s signal JS2s, since there are far more JS1 days than JS2 days. That leaves me wondering if JS1s come out mostly in large clumps with a few smaller batches here and there or if they are well-distributed. (Your recent posts imply that JS2s clump heavily, with 75% of them coming out on only 3 days while the other two days together only had about 25%. Do JS1s behave similarly?) If so, is one kind of "JS1 day" (heavy or light) more likely to be correlated with JS2s?

JS1 days are fairly well distributed. Here is the profile of the number of people with a JS1 per JS1 invite day:

Mode: 1Medan: 2Max: 11, Count: 1Min: 1, Count:Avg: 2.37Std. Dev: 1.9

I don't think we can glean much from this. The one "wave" we had (with 11 people) was way back on 10/16, likely too early for any JS2's to come out that day.

Gotcha. Didn't realize there are so many days with just one or two JS1s. Today feels like a lot, but maybe that's just because they keep getting discussed and congratulated. Either way I guess it isn't very predictive.

Now I just have to get myself a straw and a watch so I can suck it up and wait....

IrishJew wrote:Not necessarily. Since only 3/5 JS2 days were JS1 days, randomness would predict something around 60%, so your finding of 75% could be significant. Perhaps their office has days that are primarily for notification and days that are primarily for review and other functions, and the other 25% of JS2s were just tossed off during downtime or before the holiday.

I forgot about this part. If we remove the 12/23 JS2's (there were seven), which could be, as you say, tossed off before the holiday, then we arrive at a total of 64/80 JS2's going out on day's with JS1's, which puts us at 80%.

Now we're just messing with the data ("two kinds of lies..."), but it's fun lol.

So? What? You're saying JS2s are even more likely to come with JS1s than not?

IrishJew wrote:Not necessarily. Since only 3/5 JS2 days were JS1 days, randomness would predict something around 60%, so your finding of 75% could be significant. Perhaps their office has days that are primarily for notification and days that are primarily for review and other functions, and the other 25% of JS2s were just tossed off during downtime or before the holiday.

I forgot about this part. If we remove the 12/23 JS2's (there were seven), which could be, as you say, tossed off before the holiday, then we arrive at a total of 64/80 JS2's going out on day's with JS1's, which puts us at 80%.

Now we're just messing with the data ("two kinds of lies..."), but it's fun lol.

So? What? You're saying JS2s are even more likely to come with JS1s than not?

Well if we remove 12/23 on the grounds that it's an "anomaly" and they were just trying to get them out before the holidays, then yes, the correlation increases to 80%. But I don't know that we can justify removing 12/23, so I think the correlation of 74% is more defensible.

It's all wild speculation to pass the time though, so it doesn't matter either way lol.

IrishJew wrote:Not necessarily. Since only 3/5 JS2 days were JS1 days, randomness would predict something around 60%, so your finding of 75% could be significant. Perhaps their office has days that are primarily for notification and days that are primarily for review and other functions, and the other 25% of JS2s were just tossed off during downtime or before the holiday.

I forgot about this part. If we remove the 12/23 JS2's (there were seven), which could be, as you say, tossed off before the holiday, then we arrive at a total of 64/80 JS2's going out on day's with JS1's, which puts us at 80%.

Now we're just messing with the data ("two kinds of lies..."), but it's fun lol.

So? What? You're saying JS2s are even more likely to come with JS1s than not?

Well if we remove 12/23 on the grounds that it's an "anomaly" and they were just trying to get them out before the holidays, then yes, the correlation increases to 80%. But I don't know that we can justify removing 12/23, so I think the correlation of 74% is more defensible.

It's all wild speculation to pass the time though, so it doesn't matter either way lol.

I think even without removing 12/23 74% is interesting enough that you don't need to go manipulating data.

Anyway, yeah, it's all just an attempt to forget about the fact that we're a bunch of type-A overachievers who now have literally zero control over what happens to us.